Thread by @betsythemuffin

Lately a few cishet women have asked me, "what's the problem with wanting a women-only space, given that nonbinary folks aren't women?"

This framing ignores two things:

- identities != access needs
- strict gender binaries are structurally queerphobic

Gonna thread!

Three things actually: the third is that unless an organization is actively trying to handle resource constraints anti-oppressively, these resource constraints will lead to inequitable distribution of resources.

Let's start with identities and access needs. When folks say that they want a women-only space, they're not really saying that. They're saying "I want [x] out of a space, b/c that will make it safer and/or more accessible, and I believe this is likeliest in a women-only space."

Some things "women-only" is a (naive) proxy for:

- no gendered microaggressions
- no dudes hitting on women
- no abuse/harassment
- no Hacker Stank

All legit needs! But better articulated directly. And "women-only" is neither necessary nor sufficient to meet them.

When we substitute naming identities for naming access needs, we don't stop to think through a space's values. This leaves us vulnerable when folks have conflicting access needs later on. And oh boy, will they. There is no space that can meet everyone's needs perfectly.

A thought experiment: what if an IRL space wants to accommodate someone who's extremely scent-sensitive, and also someone who suffers from really bad anxiety and carries a scented chapstick as a detriggering mechanism? (Both of these folks are modelled on real people I've met.)

There are no perfect solutions there, but a lot of imperfect ones: designating a scent-friendly area the latter person can go to; asking the anxiety sufferer to rely on other coping mechanisms where needed; having the scent-sensitive person carry extra Benadryl, etc.

Regardless of specifics, negotiating a meaningful solution for both parties will go a lot better if space organizers have first thought through what they want the goals and values of their space to be. Substituting something prefab (like "women-only") won't help them at all.

And everyone will run up against resource constraints eventually. For example, let's say you're organizing a conference where folks sleep onsite. You don't have infinite dormitories, so how do you gender the dorms you do have?

Some folks feel uncomfortable bunking with cis men. Not all of these folks are women. So naively designating one dorm as women-only and the other as all-gender may leave some folks in a bad position.

Resource constraints often mean structural enbyphobia.

In a world where resource constraints often mean structural enbyphobia, part of the problem with women-only spaces (as opposed to spaces that provide safety & support for oppressed genders) is that they starve out resources for enby-inclusive spaces.

This has been a bit of a thread so far! But let's keep going. Next up, let's talk about how binary gendering can be queerphobic (even if we're only talking about binary queer women).

Let's look at these things that "women-only" can mean again:

- no gendered microaggressions
- no dudes hitting on women
- no abuse/harassment
- no Hacker Stank

As a queer woman.... ohhh boy I don't wanna be around the assumptions a straight woman might have around these things.

"no gendered microaggressions": queer ladies have like ten different cis genders alone, and straight ladies microaggress on 'em all the damn time
"no dudes hitting on women": please define "dude" and "hitting on" and please define them in a way that excludes a trans panic defense

"no abuse/harassment": trust me, queer ladies experience intimate partner violence from other queer ladies
"no Hacker Stank": I'm extremely pro-shower, but are you going to use hygiene to police aesthetics, and if so, whose aesthetics are gonna be policed?

etc. Dig further!

It's not just that "women-only" is neither necessary nor sufficient to meet the needs it's a proxy for. It's that trying to meet these needs in a way that assumes all women are alike is a beaauuutiful gateway into enabling queerphobia.

And anyway.... binary gender is a lie?

I am pretty definitely a femme cis lady and I still don't think I know any queer people (binary-identified or enby, cis or trans) who parse their own gender in the same way cishet folks seem to. Because heteronormativity is part of cishet gender. (This is queer theory 101.)

And this means that defaulting to "women-only" leaves queer folks (even cis ladies, even binary trans women) wondering what parts of our gender we're supposed to erase to exist in a "women-only" space that's defined by cishet women.

And I haven't even started talking about pre-transition & questioning transfeminine people yet. Which I'm not gonna in detail, this thread is long enough, but: if you coercively assign someone as not a woman, you might be harmfully wrong.

So, wrapping up. Before you use identity to define a space, think through:

- what needs are you trying to address?
- how might your assumptions about those needs exclude folks?
- are there other, more precise structures you can use to meet those needs?